Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T11:35:36.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

English prepositions: A stratificational approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

David C. Bennett
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Yale University

Extract

In a paper read at the Tenth International Congress of Linguists, Bucharest, 1967 (Bennett, forthcoming), I discussed the question of synonymy within the framework of the stratificational theory of language, taking examples from the area of English prepositions. The present paper has two aims. On the one hand, it incorporates the findings of more recent work on synonymy. Thus whereas, for instance, in the earlier paper two levels of synonymy were distinguished, it now seems necessary to recognize four or possibly five levels. On the other hand, the paper will attempt to set the discussion of synonymy in a wider framework by sketching the outlines of a semological description of English prepositions. To present such a description would be beyond the scope of the paper. I hope merely to indicate the general shape that the description might take. In addition to the remarks on synonymy there will be some discussion of polysemy, componential analysis and idioms. In particular it is hoped that a clear picture will emerge of the relationship between these various areas.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bennett, D. C. (forthcoming). English prepositions and synonymy: a stratificational view. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Linguists 1967.Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1953). Contrast. Lg 29. 5061.Google Scholar
Goodenough, VV. H. (1956). Componential analysis and the study of meaning. Lg 32. 195216.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A. & Strevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1932). Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Charisteria V. Mathesio Oblata, pp. 7483. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague. Reprinted in Hamp, E. P., Householder, F. W. & Austerlitz, R., eds. (1966). Readings in Linguistics 11, pp. 2230. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1936). Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. TCLP 6. 240288. Reprinted in Readings in Linguistics 11, pp. 5189.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1958). Semology: a linguistic theory of meaning. Studies in Linguistics 13. 5370.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1964). The sememic approach to structural semantics. American Anthropologist 66: 3, Part 2, 5778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1965). Kinship terminology and linguistic structure. American Anthropologist 67: 5, Part 2, 3764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1966). Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lindkvist, K. G. (1950). Studies on the Local Sense of the Prepositions IN, AT, ON and TO in Modern English. (Lund Studies in English, No. 20). Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G. (1956). A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage. Lg 32. 158194.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G. (1964). The structural analysis of kinship semanties. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass, 1962, pp. 10731093. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
Makkai, A. (1966). Idiom structure in English. Unpublished Yale University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leyden: E. J. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R. & Mulholland, J. (1964). Complex prepositions and related sequences. English Studies, 44. 6473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar